[lamford]

---

IMPs. 3NT was not alerted.

Quite amazingly, another unusual 3NT occurred at the Allerton Hill bridge club in Leeds last night, and again there was UI. After a strong club and weak jump overcall, EW were soon in a game-forcing auction. South thought North's 3NT bid was natural, when asked, but he seemed to wake up when his partner pulled the double to 4C and found the obvious "sac" at the six level. EW were disappointed they could not beat it. However, West, the club's equivalent of the SB, was not finished. "Why did you pull 3NTx to 4C?", he asked North. "Because I interpreted partner's pass of 3NTx as 'pick a minor'," he responded quickly. Why could he not have ♠Ax ♥J10xx ♦xxxxx ♣AJ, when 3NT is only on the club finesse? "He might have that", said North, "in which case you have psyched a strong club and a game-forcing 2♠, but it does not matter, we have no agreement that pass of 3NTx suggests playing there, nor does anyone else in the civilised world." "The authorised information would be exactly as I stated, 'pick a minor', based on other implicit agreements." "Why do you not think he has made an intelligent call, wanting to play in 3NTx?", continued the SB. "Because only on planet Zog would someone suggest playing in 3NT with a passed hand opposite a weak jump overcall", replied North patiently.

How do you rule? And it does seem remarkable that there is this sudden plethora of "artificial" 3NT bids, but I am sure that my correspondent has not made it up.

[AlexJonson]

The only question for North is whether he took any advantage of South's explanation.

To me the proposition is laughable. Others may think differently.

[mgoetze]

I rule that SB be given a voucher for some bridge lessons.

[lamford]

AlexJonson, on 2011-June-01, 14:55, said:

The only question for North is whether he took any advantage of South's explanation.

To me the proposition is laughable. Others may think differently.

Others do. "In my world, 3NT is to play unless there is an agreement otherwise" - campboy.
"With Callaghan, it was always to play" - Dburn
"I would regard it as natural ... <snip> ... an intelligent call <snip>" - jallerton (somewhat out of context it is agreed)

But this time I agree with you that it is laughable.

[aguahombre]

More is laughable than the passing thought that 3NT could be natural.

East: With a sixth spade and exactly the values he has already stated, he stops to make a nonsense double. This created the timing for South to bid 5C. South obviously would not have done this over 4S by East on the second round, because he had to be confused to pass 3NTX.

West: trying for a ruling.

North: If South's pass of 3NTX was for pick a minor, it is laughable he would pick QXXX, rather than AKXXXX. Remember, North had already stated his delay unusual 3NT. Four clubs would only be his "pick" with better clubs or 7-5.

That is just Bridge stuff, though --not particulary important to a ruling forum. I didn't pick on South because he was just oblivious.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2011-June-01, 16:15, said:

North: If South's pass of 3NTX was for pick a minor, it is laughable he would pick QXXX, rather than AKXXXX. Remember, North had already stated his delay unusual 3NT. Four clubs would only be his "pick" with better clubs or 7-5.

Yes, the TD thought that North was trying to stress the meaning of 3NT by bidding 4C, but, unfortunately, 6D would be just as successful. And "pick a minor" was only North's interpretation of Pass. The answer should have been "undiscussed".

[barmar]

I'm with the laughers.

Even if South has that hand, there's no way he could know that it's right to pass. It's on the club finesse because North happens to have the queen.

[aguahombre]

What finesse would that be?

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2011-June-01, 17:12, said:

What finesse would that be?

I think barmar means the club finesse in 3NTx when South has the putative Ax J10xx xxxxx AJ and one or both of the opponents have psyched.

[barmar]

Not to mention, the theoretical finesse is into the putative strong hand. So it has to be opener who psyched for the contract to have a reasonable shot.

[aguahombre]

yep, and that is illegal, anyway.

But, would South really have passed/2S with 5-card support for pard's 6-bagger?

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2011-June-01, 17:31, said:

yep, and that is illegal, anyway.

No, in England where this was, it is legal to psyche a strong club.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2011-June-01, 17:31, said:

But, would South really have passed/2S with 5-card support for pard's 6-bagger?

Perhaps he was walking the dog. And no, I am not agreeing with SB.

[mrdct]

I don't think it will make any difference to the ruling, but when and by whom was the enquiry about the non-alerted 3NT bid made?

North's 3NT bid falls entirely within the definition of "natural" in the EBU Orange Book Clause 5F1(b):

Quote

‘Natural’ bids and passes

(b) A bid of no trumps which shows a preparedness to play in no trumps, and which conveys no unusual information about suit holdings; it must not be forcing unless a forcing auction has already been created. Note that certain ostensibly natural no trump bids are permitted to allow a shortage by agreement.

Personally, I've never come across a pair which has a partnership agreement for what a 3NT rebid by a previous preemptor against game-forcing opponents opposite a passed hand at favourable vulnerability means and would be extremely surprised if such a pair exists.

South possibly should have said "no agreement" rather than "natural" but the definition of "natual" is so vague and broad in these sorts of auctions it doesn't really convey any information to North about how South is treating it. To my mind "natural" there means a suggestion/willingness to play there but if the going gets tough quite likely holding a fall-back position to his primary or secondary suit. It certainly doesn't mean north has a balanced 25-26hcp hand.

It looks to me like North is quite legally frigging around at favourable vul where his opps look virtually certain to be cold for game.

There doesn't seem to have been any alert or explanation of South's pass after the first double, so any subsequent view expressed by North that it means "pick a minor" is irrelevant as there has been no extraneous information passed from North to South during the auction.

[aguahombre]

mrdct, on 2011-June-01, 19:20, said:

Personally, I've never come across a pair which has a partnership agreement for what a 3NT rebid by a previous preemptor against game-forcing opponents opposite a passed hand at favourable vulnerability means and would be extremely surprised if such a pair exists.

Allow me to introduce you to delay unusual. I have never come across a pair who would think it is anything else --with or without previous discussion.

[mrdct]

aguahombre, on 2011-June-01, 19:59, said:

Allow me to introduce you to delay unusual. I have never come across a pair who would think it is anything else --with or without previous discussion.

Never heard of it - but if it conveys the sort of hand that North holds it's still a non-alertable natural bid under the EBU definitions.

Do you have any documentation or references for this convention? I've googled "delay unusual", "delayed unusual", "delay gambling" and "delayed gambling" all with and without "NT" and "3NT" and I've not found anything.

[Fluffy]

lamford, on 2011-June-01, 16:25, said:

Yes, the TD thought that North was trying to stress the meaning of 3NT by bidding 4C, but, unfortunately, 6D would be just as successful. And "pick a minor" was only North's interpretation of Pass. The answer should have been "undiscussed".

6♦ is down on a trump lead.

[aguahombre]

mrdct, on 2011-June-01, 20:43, said:

Do you have any documentation or references for this convention? I've googled "delay unusual", "delayed unusual", "delay gambling" and "delayed gambling" all with and without "NT" and "3NT" and I've not found anything.

No, it is a term coined back some 50 years ago by people who knew a 3NT bid in this type auction cannot mean anything else.

It is more common on (say):

(1M) 2m (2M) P
(P) 2NT.....where the 2NT rebid by the balancing hand has 4 cards in the unbid minor (6-4 in the two suits). It cannot be natural because the overcaller cannot really have a 20 count with stoppers in the major.

Back then, we looked it up under "common sense" for reference.

BTW, I didn't invent it, nor did I have any common sense, back then. I just listened to those who did.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-June-01, 21:32

[blackshoe]

Hardy has a fairly complete discussion of Unusual NT calls in his Competitive Bidding With Two Suited Hands. Not sure whether this one is in there or not, but I think so.

[lamford]

mrdct, on 2011-June-01, 20:43, said:

Never heard of it - but if it conveys the sort of hand that North holds it's still a non-alertable natural bid under the EBU definitions.

I would think it conveys unusual information about suit holdings, and is alertable. However it is not alertable if there is no partnership agreement and South, as here, intends to treat it as natural.

I had some clarification on the question about 3NT, which was asked about before East doubled it. And North clarified that he interpreted Pass of the double of 3NT as "pick a suit", not "pick a minor". In his opinion 3NT could equally well have been 0-3-7-3, 0-4-6-3, or 0-3-6-4, so his Four Clubs was automatic.